Faith, autism, languages, chickens, and clothes… The life of a teenage girl.

Tag Archives: Christianity

A tour in words of my favourite place on campus. It was going to go on Facebook, but then it got too long.

The university likes to tell us – and everyone else – about what a diverse place it is. Let me take you on a tour of the place that, I think, is the most diverse building on campus.

It’s lunch-time when we meet near the campus centre and head east towards a building that you sort of always thought was some sort of alien space-ship that had landed by mistake and turned into a second, smaller, Rotunda.

As we approach the building, you can see a lot of people gathered on the verandah. There are barbeques out, and lovely smells, but as we get closer, you notice that the men all have little doilies on their heads – kippot – and that some of them have knotted strings hanging out from their shirt-hems – tzitziyot. It’s the Kosher lunch, and one of the rabanim nods at us as he hurries past with an armful of barbeque-cooking implements.

We head inside the nearest doors, and it’s no less busy inside. Sure, it’s not exactly the Menzies foyer at class changeover, but there are people going in all directions. You need the loo, so we head straight to the ladies’ nearby. Someone yelps as we crack the door open. “Sorry!”

It’s opened from the inside, and we squeeze through, dodging through people to get past the sinks. There are girls in every space – adjusting hijabs, washing limbs, talking – “Am I going to get through prayer before halaqa class starts?”

Escaping from the press of people in the ladies’ room, we come out into the corridor, where there are fewer people, most of them moving about purposefully. There’s probably one person standing around, looking lost. “I was told to come to the religious centre for the meeting, but where do I go now?”

After directing her to her own chaplain, we head down the curving corridor which runs alongside the main chapel. The first room we pass is a meeting-room, and there’s movement inside it, too – a prayer meeting, of one of the evangelical Pentecostal student groups. The door’s open, and we nod at them, but continue on.

At the end is the chaplain’s office, with unlikely religious props stashed in every corner, and a trolley of tea-making facilities, and a massive pile of flour along one wall for the pancake breakfast for international students in the morning.

In the middle of the room is a circle of chairs and people with Bibles in their laps, talking over them. It’s the Catholics having a Bible study, but it’s being run by a high-church Protestant girl who’s teaching them Bible verses.

This is the Religious Centre. It’s a space that’s unique in the country, and it deserves much more attention than it gets. Most students probably don’t know about it unless they’re religious – and even then, some still don’t.

There is a building on campus where Jews, Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, and everyone else co-exist happily… And you know how much bad blood there is – literally blood, over the last thousand years – between Catholics and Protestants, between Christians and Muslims and between Muslims and Jews.

This is a place where three chaplains can have a perfectly rational discussion about just who it is who keeps leaving the sound system in the main chapel turned on so the battery’s run down by Monday morning. It’s a Catholic, an Orthodox, and an Adventist, and you know how Adventists feel about Catholics. But no-one accuses someone else’s leader of being the Antichrist, and no-one tells anyone that they’re not a Christian because they have three extra words in the middle of the Creed.

Yes, there are differences of belief. Yes, everyone aware of that, and everyone conducts their faith lives separately. There are some good, amicable discussions of differences in theology. But everyone does their thing side-by-side, cheek-by-jowl, without argument or bloodshed. Everyone gets on with a smile, appreciating the chance they have to use this amazing space.

The university likes to tell us – and everyone else – about what a diverse place it is. If you get a chance, come and visit the most diverse place of all – a place they probably didn’t even tell you about.

So, I was “tidying” a filing cabinet I used a few years ago and found a couple of sewing patterns. Well, actually, I found a lot of sewing patterns. Well, I found a couple of branded sewing patterns and half a dozen back-bodice-front-bodice-sleeve combinations (I think I must have drawn myself a new pattern every time I needed a new dress for a few years there). And three complete headcovering patterns I’d completely forgotten about.

I thought someone out there might be interested in them – any headcoverers out there? Anyway, so here they are. The grid is meant to be 1cm spacing, so you might have to print-and-scale-copy-by-hand or something if you want to use them.

Hanging Veil

Also known as “kite veil”, “simple veil”, or a million and one other things. This basic idea seems to be the most common sort of headcovering amongst non-denom Christian women at the moment (not that I really hang around much on headcovering sites these days).

It’s a fairly simple one-piece proposition, and best made out of polycotton knit, lycra, or some other sort of stretchy material – that gives the best drape. An old t-shirt is a good option.

You can adjust the size by measuring head circumference (that’s the horizontal length) and also from hairline to wherever you want it to fall (that’s the vertical length).

First, trim the front and back. You can do a simple seam (use a zig-zagging stitch) or attack elasticised lace. Then, I sew it together on the straight bit opposite the fold. This makes it into a tube-like thing which is simple to put on – just pull over your head and attach at the front. The whole process takes maybe an hour to make (I hand-sew) and about thirty seconds or less to put on in the morning.

Simple “Kapp”

For something “simple”, it’s the most complicated pattern here in that it has three pieces. I think I originally adapted it from a how-to at Shepherd’s Hill Homestead, although I can’t find it anymore and can’t even get onto the site at the moment.

I wore it for a while, but eventually decided that a kapp-style headcovering simply did not work with my head – it needed constant readjusting.

First, sew the front (and sides) of the brim.

Next, pleat the crown. I did 5 pleats up each side (opening down) and 4 pleats along the bottom (opening out), about 1cm deep. Pleats should be as long as to the grey line marked, and you can iron or not iron as desired – depends on the look you want. You could probably even sew them down into darts if you wanted – I think I did that once.

At the very least, sew the pleats down along the edge before you attach the brim. Finish it off with the binding – it probably doesn’t need to be as wide as in the picture, but apply it like bias-binding. I used to do it all the way to the front of the brim to finish it off nicely all the way along the bottom. You can also cut the binding longer if you want to make it into ties, but I found the angle was a little awkward, although that might be better if you make the pattern larger – which I probably would if I made it again, since it sits a bit further back on the head than I would like.

“Common Mennonite” Veil

That’s the name that was written on it by the lady that gave it to me, anyway (although I don’t think she was Mennonite). It’s the one from which I developed the hanging veil pattern I use. I might refer to this one as a “brimmed veil”.

Upon reviewing her instructions, I’m pretty sure the piece I’ve labled “brim” was actually meant to be a bias of some sort, but I believe what I did at the time was gather along the top and wear it with a brim, a bit like a cross between a veil and an open-back kapp. I found the press-stud closure (it’s labled “snaps closure” on the original pattern) to be a bit impractical and ended up pinning it, I think, although as I look at the pattern now, I think I might attach strings to the brim if I did it again, perhaps.

Open-Back Kapp

I couldn’t find the brim pattern for this one, so I’ve put in the brim from the last – I’d probably cut it a bit wider, though, or perhaps use the brim from the simple kapp. I think I probably conflated the two patterns when they were given to me, which is why I ended up making the other one like an open-back kapp.

Anyway, the original pattern has noted on it “this one pattern can be done a few ways for different looks”, and there are options for a smaller fit or fewer pleats (place the fold an inch in), a straight hem at the bottom (which would be easier to sew, apparently), and also a notation that the curved hem could be turned into casing for elastic.

I think with the gathers, brim, and elastic at the bottom it could become another simple kapp pattern, although I suspect it might have a back-shape reminiscent of Lancaster County Amish ladies (you know, the distinctive heart thing). I just don’t like gathering anything – I’d rather pleat any day (it must be the Scottish in me, but I honestly used to have nightmares about gathering. I could never get the hang of it). I presume that you should add ties at the edges of the brim.

Snood

This one was already on my computer; that’s why it looks different. I don’t know that I ever made it up, but it looks like it should work well enough, although perhaps with a wider brim than that.

I would probably use some sort of stretchy material like for my hanging veil headcoverings; sew the two bags together along the sides at bottom (top is to the left of the picture), sew the front of the brim, gather the front of the bag and attach the two. I’m wondering about attaching some sort of drawstring, elastic or tie to the ends of the brim.

I sort of want to make a snood now, because I think it might make things easier on those days I can’t be bothered putting my hair in a bun or if I have a headache or something like that. But I can’t seem to get anything to stay put on my head, even with some sort of pin or clip, unless my hair is tied firmly back, so there wouldn’t really be much point since I’d have to tie my head back anyway.

You can also get lots of patterns from Candle On the Hill, who also offer the Friends Patterns patterns for various regional Amish headcovering/kapp styles. I haven’t used any of these patterns, though, so I don’t know what they’re like, and you have to pay for them. Candle On the Hill does offer a free headcovering (hanging veil) “pattern”, but what it actually is is a list of instructions basically amounting to “cut out a circle and hem it”.

Another note – I started off attaching the headcoverings with straight pins, which worked surprisingly well (although it looks a bit like you’ve stapled the headcovering to your head, according to several people who commented on it at the time). These days I use little white (1.5-inch) bobby pins, which you can find if you search online at cosmetic supply shops. I’m currently working through a 120g tub which should last me… the rest of my life. My headcoverings are mostly white, with a few pastels, so it works, but occasionally I revert back to wearing a bandanna-style covering, which I did for a while, and I sometimes pin those if they’re darker colours.

You don’t need a pattern for the bandanna-style covering – just take a large square (not smaller than 50cm square), fold it into a triangle, and tie it under your bun. I don’t really like how they sit – I always get annoying “wings” and it gets assymetrical very easily (yes, I’ve been accused of being OCD). But if you use a reasonably drapey material, it’s not so bad.

I think that’s about everything. A shout-out to any headcovering ladies out there! I hope you find the patterns useful.

Oh, another note – I mentioned at the beginning the bodice-and-sleeves patterns I used to make. I did it by tracing around a dress I liked, if memory serves, and toyed for a bit with measuring myself and drawing my own patterns. I had varying degrees of success (but got better at it when I was about 12 and realised sleeves were meant to be shaped at the top!).

These days, I use a pattern from Gehmans Fabrics, from whom I also buy my dress material (I cannot speak highly enough of the material offered at Gehmans – do yourself a favour and buy it rather than go to Spotlight. It’s worth the shipping cost) – although I do add an extra inch to the bodice and a few inches to the skirt and arms – I’ve come to the conclusion that the Germanic Mennonite women must simply be a bit of a different shape to me, but the dress pattern is simple (just six pieces, including separate cape pieces) and very easy to use, and comes on very sturdy paper.

Read this article on what it means to be a Christian, and use the following questions to guide your discussion. Do you have any difficulties with this article? What do you agree with in this article? How does the author seek to convince you of his position? How do good works fit with genuine faith, and is this essential for being a Christian?

Isn’t it fascinating how a lack of clarity in terminology can have such effects on the understanding and even formation of a doctrine? In the article, we have two very important words which today are used with such a range of meaning that it is almost impossible to determine what exactly is meant by them: “Christian” and “salvation”.

In order to clarify the meaning of one, I must clarify the meaning of the other. “Salvation” is an ongoing process beginning with confession and justification and continuing through multiple steps, as discussed in my previous post (which isn’t posted here because it was overall convoluted, shoddy, and difficult to follow). One of these steps is “sanctification”, the process of becoming more like Christ – a process which might also be called “discipleship”. Since in the New Testament, the term “Christian” is used (only once, as far as I can recall, in Acts 26:28) to refer to a disciple of Christ, a “Christian” is then a person who has repented and been justified, the beginning of the process of salvation which continues with sanctification.

In common usage, however, “salvation” commonly refers only to the events of justification and adoption, which take place at belief and confession; while the author seems at least to understand “salvation” as a larger, ongoing work… at first (more on that later).

The author states, in rebuttal to some unknown and unnamed evangelists, that “confessing Jesus [saying a sinner’s prayer] does not make you a Christian” and nor will it “grant you eternal salvation”. In response to Romans 10:9-10 (“confess with your mouth and believe with your heart…”), he states Matthew 7:21-23 (“depart from me, I never knew thee…”).

I disagree with the author. Romans 10:9-10 is specifically two-parted – speaking with the mouth and believing with the heart. The persons condemned in Matthew 7:21-23 have done only the first of these, confessing Jesus outwardly but not inwardly. These are “mouth-Christians” who – I agree with the author – are not Christians. Romans 10:9-10 makes clear that both outward and inward confession of Jesus is required for “salvation” (adoption and justification) to occur, setting the confessor on the path of sanctification, part of the ongoing process of salvation.

The author also says that “confessing Christ is a result of salvation, not the cause of salvation”. I disagree, and say that it is both – the result of salvation (election and grace) and the cause of salvation (justification, then sanctification, then glorification). At first, the author seemed to be using “salvation” as a synonym for “adoption”, but here, he seems to be using it as a synonym for “election”!

The author also deals with works, juxtaposing the two passages of Galatians 2:16 (justification by faith, not by works) and James 2:17 (“faith without works is dead”). His explanation, while holding the unclarity typical of the entire article, seems to be heading towards the idea that Galatians refers to works as a means of justification, while James refers to works as evidence of sanctification.

In the second section of the article, the author explains that “there are five characteristics that are required for someone to rightly call themselves a Christian: repentance, faith, works, the Holy Spirit, and love. Lacking any of these will place that person outside of being a Christian.” Not only do I disagree with this last statement, but the author’s explanation of these five things is (typically) unclear, and his ordering of them could also be improved.

First, the author’s view of “faith” as a characteristic seems to include two parts: belief that one’s sins are forgiven, and belief in Christ’s work; and he states that the former comes from the latter. In this, I agree, and place “repentance” in the middle – thus, belief in the reality of Christ’s work, repentance of sins, and faith in the resultant forgiveness (in justification and in adoption).

Again, the author describes good works – and love – as evidence of one’s Christian-ness. “You cannot accept God without the Holy Spirit”, he says, and “you know someone has the Spirit of God when they have love”. To this first I would agree, insofar as we would be incapable of understanding – or following through on – anything without the help of the Spirit.

However, the author goes on to say, “genuine repentance, faith and good works come from the heart. The Holy Spirit is the one who changes the heart to have these desires in the first place. That is what is meant by being ‘born again’.” Perhaps it is merely my understanding of the term “born again”, but I disagree. To my understanding, being “born again” is what happens when one confesses and believes in Christ – namely, adoption into God’s family and regeneration into new life (represented for our tangible understanding in baptism). The Spirit may aide us in believe, in genuine repentance, and in perseverance through faith in forgiveness, but this aide does not constitute being “born again”, which is what God does in and for us – through Christ – after our repentance.

Overall, in dissection, there are few points in the article in which I disagree with the author. However, in putting them all together, we come up with some rather different pictures. Then again, as I’ve mentioned, his picture is rather unclear and I’m not entirely certain what it is. He uses copious quotes from the Bible in order to convince us of his position on each point, but does not put the points together very well.

I worship in a tradition which has previously practiced fasting but has now mostly abandoned the practice to embrace silence, stillness, and contemplation in its place. I’m not the sort who’s ever had much of a problem with silence, stillness, and contemplation, so these things aren’t really a spiritual discipline for me – or, at least, not a new one, and part being alive is to grow and try new things.

Fasting in the Bible

In the Bible, fasting appears to have been used for a variety of reasons, including mourning[2], preparation for a physical battle[3] or spiritual trial[4], supplication[5], repentance[6], seeking guidance[7], reading the Scripture[8], or simply to draw nearer to God[9] or gain spiritual strength[10]. On many occasions, prayer is mentioned alongside fasting[11] or depicted with it[12].

At several points in the Bible[13], we see people fasting merely for appearances’ sake, to make themselves seem more spiritual; this was apparently such a problem that Jesus gave specific instructions about fasting so as to avoid it. In Matthew 6:16-18, the disciples are told not to go about fasting in an obvious way, but to do it in secret, maintaining a happy outward appearance.

From the Biblical record, we can see that there are a number of needs which fasting fulfils, listed above. While some of these probably seem to us today to be either irrelevant (preparation for a battle) or just a little odd and unnecessary (as mourning or as preparation for reading the Scripture), they are, for the most part, needs which Christians still have today – such as spiritual trials, repenting, and the need for spiritual strength or guidance.

Fasting in Historical Christianity

Fasting two days of the week quickly became the norm in early Christianity. The Didache, which was written sometime before the end of the second century[14], states that Christians should fast on Wednesday[15] and Friday[16], rather than on Monday and Thursday “with the hypocrites”[17] (presumably the Jews[18]). The Didache also links fasting and praying together in the single sentence[19], indicating that the two were viewed on a similar level.

“Fasting is recommended by the scriptures and practised by the church as a means of atoning for sin and commending ourselves and our prayers to God. Hence the fast days of the Christian calendar and their connecting with times of prayer, such as Lent and Ember weeks[21] and the eves of the great feasts.”[22]

In both Roman Catholic and Orthodox traditions, the term “fast” now applies more commonly to what might better be known as “abstinence”. In Orthodox churches, a “plain fast” or a “strict fast” require abstinence from meat, eggs, dairy, fish, wine, and oil[23]. Some feast days require relaxed fasts which allow wine and oil and sometimes fish. In the Roman Catholic church, which has far fewer fast days than the Orthodox church, “fasting” is abstaining simply from meat[24], or from some other food, and the canon law states that works of charity or “exercises of piety” may be substituted for fast and abstinence observance[25]. In the West, it has become more popular for Catholics to abstain from activities, such as texting[26], or from treat foods only, such as chocolate, for Lent. Some Anglican churches recommend daily periods of contemplative prayer and self-examination in place of fasting[27].

Meanwhile, while the practice of fasting is falling prey to attempts to make it relevant by eliminating it in traditional churches, it has experienced something of a revival in Pentecostal churches. Pentecostal churches, leery of legalism, do not legislate any specific fast days and instead leave it up to “the leading of God”. However, many individuals within the Pentecostal movement have labelled different sorts of fast, including “normal fasts” (abstaining from all food but continuing to drink water), “water fasts” (abstaining from everything, including water), and “Daniel fasts” or “partial fasts” (abstaining from one or more items of food, typically meat and sweets)[28].

Fasting in the Modern Context

It is clear to see that fasting can be, has been, and is being adapted for the modern context. In the Bible, as well as in traditional churches, fasting has been very much a communal activity, as well as at times a private one. Today, we no longer live in close, closed communities of believers, whether Jewish or Christian, which can undertake fasting as a community event. Nor, probably, would many protestants want to do so, since faith in many protestant traditions is much more a personal affair than a community one.

Despite whatever postmodern reluctance we might have to avoid doing anything as a group, whether for legalism-avoiding reasons or for anything else, it is most assuredly ill-advised to go about fasting without letting anyone know, even if only for the health concerns, to say nothing of spiritual ones. For this reason it is important to find some way of treading a middle ground between individual, personal fasting behaviour, and the congregational fasting periods of history.

[14] van de Sandt, H & Flusser, D 2002, The Didache: Its Jewish Sources and its Place in Early Judaism and Christianity, Royal Van Gorcum, Assen, Nederlands., pg. 48b

[15] Interestingly, in the Gaelic language, which has no record for weekday names prior to the arrival of Christianity, Wednesday is called “Di-Ciad-Aoin”, meaning “day of the first fast”. Likewise, Friday is “Di-h-Aoine”, or “day of the fast”, leaving Thursday as “Di-Ardaoin”, a shortened form of “di-eadar-aoin” or “day between the fast”.

[16] The suggestion has been made that these days were chosen for the following reason: Wednesday because that is the day Judas betrayed Jesus, and Friday because it is the day on which Jesus was killed

[17] van de Sandt, H & Flusser, D 2002, The Didache: Its Jewish Sources and its Place in Early Judaism and Christianity, Royal Van Gorcum, Assen, Nederlands., pg. 12e, 8.1

[18] van de Sandt, H & Flusser, D 2002, The Didache: Its Jewish Sources and its Place in Early Judaism and Christianity, Royal Van Gorcum, Assen, Nederlands., pg. 292c

[19] van de Sandt, H & Flusser, D 2002, The Didache: Its Jewish Sources and its Place in Early Judaism and Christianity, Royal Van Gorcum, Assen, Nederlands., pg.s. 12e-13a, 8.1-8.3

Some further divide their fasts by length, exact things being abstained from, or reason. Elmer Towns, a Baptist writer, identifies fast types by reason or aim, rather than length or abstinence, and lists nine different sorts of fast this way in his book Fasting for Spiritual Breakthrough, 1st Indian edn, OM Books, Secunderabad, Andhra Pradesh, India.

Last week at a Bible Study, the topic came up of followers of other religions and whether they can have salvation or not. The general consensus of most of the others in the group seemed to be that yes, they could, because all religions are different means to the same end, and they are finding their own path, and “actually, I get on quite well with my Muslim friends”, and we all just have different ways of seeing God, even those who don’t concede He exists.

Well, regular readers of my blog will know that I firstly disagree with that and secondly wasn’t having a bar of it.

Placing my Bible down on the table, folding my hands on top of it, and leaning forwards, I said, “May I quote, ‘I am the way, the truth, and the life; no-one comes to the Father except through me’?”

(If there’s anyone who doesn’t know – and I wouldn’t have thought there were any Christians who didn’t, until I was stopped by one of the ladies at the Bible study who questioned me on all of the following in genuine ignorance – yes, that’s a quote from the Bible [John 14:6]; I is Jesus speaking; and the Father is God the Father.)

“So you don’t think followers of other religions can be saved?”

And I didn’t answer well. I stumbled and mumbled and missed out important things – which is why I’m rectifying it and straightening my thoughts out by writing this down now.

“Well, I accept that Jews can be saved.” Definitely pre-Messiah (pre-Jesus) Jews… I’m not sure one way or the other about Jews today. “But as for other religions… if you believe and hundreds of gods or spirits, or no God… then no.”

On the topic of Muslims, I’ll just add here… I’m open to the thought that they might worship with same God. Or rather, that they might worship the same God misrepresented. That is to say, I do believe they worship God, but I don’t believe they worship my God. I think they believe they’re worshipping my God.

Does that make sense? I don’t believe Allah is some other being, or the devil, or the antichrist. I can see enough similarity in the teachings of Islam to Christianity that it’s a bit of a sort of messed-up version of it. All the basics are there. All the histories are the same. The basic message has been changed. So, no, their God is the same God as the God of the Jews and the Christians. However, is Allah perhaps an idol – a man-made idea – of the worst kind? Is he a man-made god which bears enough similarity to the real thing to be mistaken as such?

Yes, I know that’s controversial. But that’s just a little to explain my thinking on the matter. Jews definitely worship the same God as Christians. Sometimes perhaps they don’t understand Him the same way, but more than ¾ of the Christian Scriptures are the Jewish Scriptures, so we worship the same God.

But, on the matter of the potential salvation of followers of other religions through that religion, as far as I can see it:

Jews – Maybe. Definitely in the past, perhaps today; at any rate, they have enough information within their own faith for salvation through Christ.

Muslims – Not really. Close, but not quite there, which is the saddest thing about it all.

Others – No.

“But what about people who never have the chance to hear about Jesus?”

This is the tricky question people always throw at you when you start talking about salvation through Christ alone. After all, salvation through Christ alone inherently implies condemnation for everyone else, so doesn’t it seem unfair that people can be condemned without ever hearing?

I know what my lecturers would say. They would point out that everyone in the world is descended from Noah, and therefore every people group in the world at some point knew God and rejected him. They would bring up Romans 1 and natural revelation. They would mention the Old Testament and how the consequences of rejection of God is passed down through the generations, and not limited to just the one who rejects him.

It’s a hard thing to say, because all those things imply that such people who never have a chance to hear about Jesus are condemned by their ancestors, and by circumstances outside their control, and we don’t want our God to be like that. God, after all, is love.

But He is also just, and sometimes God’s justice seems cruel to us.

But… but… Romans 1 and natural revelation. God works in mysterious ways. There are only a handful of truly uncontacted peoples today, although there are definitely a larger number who will never have contact with Christians. But God’s creation is the same everywhere, and wondrous, and said uncontacted tribes usually have a very keen awareness of the spiritual, in one form or another. God’s natural revelation can lead people to question, to look further, to look for God. God is powerful. Who am I to say what He can and can’t do?

So, awful as it sounds, those uncontacted tribes are not my concern – unless, of course, God calls me to minister to them. Even the much larger number of people in the world who will never meet a Christian are not – at this point in my life – my concern. What is my concern, however, are the people I interact with on a daily basis who follow other religions – or no religion at all.

What the people in the Bible Study group would have me do is make friends with these people, accepting that we’re just on different paths to the same goal, and leave it at that.

But the moment we do that, we’re denying Christ.

Does that sound harsh? Probably. But if we sincerely believe that we have been saved through Christ, then in those very same passages, we must also accept that the only way to salvation is through Christ. Surely we should want to go out and let everyone know, so they can join us? “Go and make disciples, baptising in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” To tell ourselves that followers of other religions are on their way to salvation by a different path is to not only deny our own salvation, but to deny Christ and some of His last words to us – the Great Commission.

There are people right here with us, whom see every day, with whom we work, who might be counted among the ‘people who never have the chance to hear about Jesus’ if we as Christians do not speak up and tell them! And the awful things is, they will have had the chance, but we will have denied it to them because we’re telling ourselves “we all have different paths to God”.

Now, I don’t want to you think I’m some raving lunatic who goes out every day street-preaching and basically making a nuisance of myself to my non-Christian colleagues. We all know (well, most of us) that that sort of thing isn’t a constructive way to go about sharing the Gospel. And besides that, I’m much too chicken.

So I have friends of other religions. I have “neo-spiritual” hippy friends (there are a lot of them in my area). I have friends who are atheist, postmodernist, “normal twenty-first-century rational” people.

But at no point do I forget that they are lost – unsaved – and at no point do I tell myself, “Oh, that’s all right, because we’re all on different roads to the same place in the end.”

No, but you have to pick your moments carefully. I’m more outspoken on these matters among Christians than among non-Christians, and definitely much more outspoken on my blog! Traditional ways of “sharing the Gospel” don’t always work, particularly on postmodernists and hippies.

What does work, however, is showing them that you’re normal, “living out Christ in your life” (in quotes because I hate that phrase as ridiculous Christianese, but have to concede it fits), and answering their questions when they arise.

What does work, with hippies particularly, is finding points of commonality. Hippies are open to faith and to God. They’re not open to religion. Share your faith and your lifestyle, comment on something wonderfully spiritual they’ve “discovered” which is actually a much-cherished part of Christianity. (Laying of hands in prayer, for example, is a big one I’ve discussed with hippies on at least two occasions).

Reach out at share with your non-Christian friends however you will, however it works, but do not – for one moment – forget that they need you to reach out and share with them.

Don’t deny your own salvation, Christ and the Great Commission, by jumping on the happy bandwagon that “all religions are different means to the same end”.

They’re not.

-=-=-=-

Feel free to flame me in the comments.

But remember my blog’s policy on the airing of alternate views: you may take up to two comments to express your view in a calm, inoffensive manner, after which we will agree to disagree. No name-calling or accusations of narrow-mindedness, any-isms or brainwashing.